h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Durrington Walls Henge-Stonehenge Complex - A7379265
Author: BigAl- Patron Saint of Left Handers. Keeper of mnemonics. Saboteur of boring and banal conversation. - U723247

Well, I've been considering writing an Entry on Stonehenge for some time. I have delayed because it would be a truly MONUMENTAL task and, in any case Galaxy Babe aka Annie is already working on one (A2523188). Hence I have been circling around the issue with an Entry on Pembrokeshire (from where the blue stones for SH were excavated), and now this Entry on Durrington Walls.

>> By definition, Stonehenge is not really a henge at all.

Not true! Stonehenge has a ditch and raised earthbank around it, making it very defintely a henge. There stone rings are in the middle and were build about 1,000 years after the henge. This seems to be the problem with your entry - Stonehenge may have been built in 2,500 BC, but the stone parts weren't. They came much later.

Well, this is what Wikipaedia says about it (although this isn't where I got the original info - I think I got the originalk info from the Chaneel 4 website, where they described their reconstruction of the Southern Circle of Durringtommn Walls):

'The word henge is a backformation from Stonehenge, the famous monument in Wiltshire. Stonehenge is not a true henge at all as its ditch runs outside its bank, although there is a small extant external bank as well. This is a modern distinction however, we do not know if ditch placement would have been a significant feature or not to the people who built the monuments'.

... just here:

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/2005_durr_stonehenge.html

The distinction between a bank with an internal ditch (henge) and a bank with an external ditch (as at Stonehenge) is less than you are implying by your comment.

You also haven't addressed the point that all the stone workings at Stonehenge were built later.

'You also haven't addressed the point that all the stone workings at Stonehenge were built later'.

That's coz the Entry is about the functional relationship between the twio sites, rather than about SH itself (That's GB aka Annie's pigeon)... but it may be worthwhile putting in a sentence or so

I've added a bit to mention that the construction of SH took place in stages. It's just to bookmark the idea the because now I think I have to find the dates that DWH was in use and map it to the constructional phases of SH.

I think I've sorted the overlapping chronologies satisfactorily now.

You haven't really clarified what you mean by the 'Stonehenge isn't a Henge' bit yet, and in my opinion that footnote should probably be earlier on in the entry.

Alex

'You haven't really clarified what you mean by the 'Stonehenge isn't a Henge' bit yet, and in my opinion that footnote should probably be earlier on in the entry'.

Well, I don't think I really need to, because the Entry is really about the inter-relationship between the 3 sites rather than the semantics of what is or is not a henge. However, I think the definition is of passing interest and, anyone who is really interested can click on the link. (It could probably be followed up more rigorously in Annie's 'Stonehenge' Entry, currently in PR.

I think the footnote is in the correct place because it's virtually the first place in the Entry where the word 'henge' appears as a separate word.

I thought you could stick the footnote next to the first instance of 'Stonehenge' fair enough

Well, in 'Stonehenge', henge is just part of a longer word.

In Durrington Walls Henge, it is a separate word, which obviously hass a meaning which tells you about the object at Durrington Walls. So I think that is the point at which 'henge' needs to be explained/defined.

Just the one, really...

-Para 3 Line 7: 'altar'

...but a couple of small doubts here - I'm not sure of my ground - any comments?
-Section Archaeology
-Para 5, Lines 1 & 2 Perhaps something like 'Analysis of the bones showed that the largest proportion came from pigs, the remainder from cattle' (or cattle and...)
-Para 5, Line 4, 'The teeth were also found to have been affected by caries'

RB. I've made those alterations. (I remember not being happy over that sentence concerning caries).

Very interesting. I was at woodhenge five years ago as part of a tour. I noted that cement had replaced the wooden posts and someone had color coded them.
I particularly like your idea that the wooden henges represented the living and would have been present at sunrise whereas stonehenge would have been visited in the evening.

A nice interesting entry. I'd not heard of the wood henge... I don't suppose you know much about the sea henge do you?
Anyway, while I like the entry and think it should definately be put in the edited guide, I just wanted to add to the query regarding Stonehenge's apparent alter. The way I understand it, people always believed Stonehenge to have a sacraficial alter (being the horizontal stone in the centre of the circle) but recent evidence has shown that the horizontal stone was one of the three head stones which had unfortunately toppled over and that, concenquently, gave rise to the belief that stonehenge was used for human sacrifice. I may be wrong as I'm not an expert in the field, but that is certainly what I've been led to believe.

Well, there are two stones (which cause confusion - in my mind at any rate):

1. The Alter Stone: A block of dressed sandstone. It is/was at the focus of the bluestone horseshoe, but is now buried in the ground beneath the fallen stomnes of the great sarsen trilithon. It is thought that it originally stood upright as a pillar, so was not a sacrificial altar.

2. The Slaughter Stone: This is situated at the entrance to the earthwork and originally stood upright, together with a similar stone, now vanished. Together, these formed part of the ceremonial doorway to the site.

So, neither has any role in human sacrifice.

(Obviously these details belong in the SH Entry, and not this one).

Seeing as Stonehenge has re-entered PR, thought you might like some fresh eyes over this Big Al

MJ

Yes MJ (I try not to bump my own entries)

Is Insall some sort of military rank? If not then you don't really need the 'one' before Squadron Leader Insall